OF THE MASS,

AND THE RIGHT PARTAKERS

OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

XXX. LORD'S DAY.

1 Cor. x. 18-21. Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Q. 80. What difference is there between the Lord's supper, and the Popish mass?

A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that we by the Holy Ghost aré ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God the Father, and will there be worshipped by us; but the mass teacheth that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of

Christ, unless Christ be also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass is at bottom nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

Q. 81. For whom is the Lord's supper instituted?

A. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy ;-but hypocrites, and such as tum not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Q. 62. Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who by confession and life declare themselves infidels and ungodly?

A. No; for by this the covenant of God would be profaned, and his wrath kindled against the whole congregation; therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and his apostles, to exclude such persons by the keys of the kingdum of heaven, until they show amendment of life.

WEEDS will always remain." This is a common proverb,

and it is not without a reason. God hath, on account of the sin of Adam, which was also the sin of the whole human race, "cursed the earth, and condemned it to bring forth thorns and thistles,” according to Gen. ii. 17, 19. Weeds are also very fruitful: : though we root them out ever so carefully, the corrupt earth will still yield and bring them forth again. It is just so with heresies and errours concerning the doctrine of the truth; they will never in this life be wholly rooted and purged out of the church. The Lord esteems them to be always necessary for the church, in order to try and exercise her. The apostle saith, 1 Cor. xi. 19. "There must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Yea, when once an errour concerning the doctrine of the faith possesseth a person, it will grow like weeds: "Evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived," as Paul forewarns us, 2 Tim. iii. 13. The heretical "words of Hymeneus and Philetus will eat like a canker," saith the same man, 2 Tim, ii. 17. Erroneous persons are too obstinate to retract what they conceive they have once rightly apprehended; and they cannot maintain one errour easily without glossing it over, and mak ing it appear plausible by another. If we should not exceed the

Jimies of an introduction, we should show distinctly and in order how the firs erroneous tenets of our adversaries, as the lordship of the church of Rome, the indifferent freewill of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, and the enthusiasm of the Quakers have hatched every other errour. It will suffice at present to see the power of errour in the transubstantiation of the Papists: they said at first, in order to introduce images into the church, that Christ was in a bodily manner present in the supper. Although the faithful labourers bestirred themselves to root these weeds out of the field of the Lord, it was to no purpose, the weeds remained and spread the more : those who nursed them did not know how to preserve them, unless they would say that Christ was present by a transubstantiation, or substantial changing of the bread and wine into his body and blood. Having asserted this, they were ready to teach also, that Christ must be offered up for sins, and worshipped in the supper, which is called the mass by the Romanists; verily evil weeds; we will not endeav our to root them out, but with the instructor to discover the abomi nable nature of them, that every one may beware of them.

The instructor exhibits three particulars in this Lord's day, as subjects of exposition.

I. The abomination of the Popish mass, Question 80.

-II. Who are, and who are not proper partakers of the Lord's sup per. Question 81.

III In what manner the church ought to preserve this supper from those who would profane it, Question 82.

I. With respect to the first particular, the instructor asks, "What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the Popish mass?" Why doth he ask this question? will he recommend the Popish mass to us? no, but he asks thus, that he may refute the mass; for if there be so great a difference between the Lord's supper, and the Popish mass, then the mass is not the Lord's supper, as the Romanists pretend; but that the common people may not perceive this, they have changed the name of the supper, and called it the mass. This name mass was not heard in the church during the first four centuries, but was after that, used by the Latin church, when they dismissed the catechumens, before the administration of the supper, and the communicants at the separating of the congregation; for then they said, ite, missa est, that is, go, ye are dismissed, or the congregation is dismissed. It would therefore be an utter absurdity to seek for this word, either in the Hebrew or Greek language, unJess we would seek for it in Daniel's prophecy of Antichrist, and his

God Maussim, Dan, xi 36-39. We will indeed find: Antichrist: and his breaden God depicted there in lively colours. Many have proved with abundant evidence, that these words do not relate to Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the Romish Antichrist. And therefore we may observe the secret judgment of God here, that the Papists have given the name of mass to this mystery of iniquity; for, ac cording to the prophecy of Paul, who describes Antichrist in nearly the same words with Daniel, "God hath sent them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." See 2 Thess. ii. 3—11.

But of what consequence would the name be, if the matter only were good; but the matter also is detestable. They say that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, which the mass-priests offer up to God, in order to procure forgiveness of sins for the quick and the dead, and which must be worshipped by the people. In order to serve this mass well they play strange pranks, one while the priest walks, then he stands, then he turns round, then he bows, then he raises himself up, then he crosses himself, then he pronounces a blessing, then he is silent, then he cries aloud, either speaking or singing, &c. His dress is fantastical, and his expressions are singular: there are pontifical and episcopal, high and low, private and public, red, black, green and violet masses, masses for the quick and the dead, for sick kine, sheep and swine. Who can reckon up all the oddities of the mass? What think ye, hearers, are these things like the Lord's supper, in which they seek the mass? did Christ either do or command aught like this in the supper?

But that the falsehood and abominableness of the mass may be more plainly exhibited, the catechism points out a threefold differs ence between the Lord's supper and the popish mass.

1. The first difference is, that " the Lord's supper testifieth to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross." The word of God teacheth us, that "believers are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offer ing he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Now, where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin." Thus speaks the apostle, Heb. x. 10, 14, 18. The supper testifieth this, for "both word and sacraments are appointed to this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the only ground of our

*The Dutch translation retains the original word Maussim, which the English translation renders forces.

salvation; this we have shown on the sixty seventh question. In opposition to this "the mass teaches that the living and dead have not the pardon of their sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ be also daily offered for them by the priests." And so the mass teaches us a doctrine wholly different from that which the Lord's supper teaches; for (a) in the institution of the supper we do not find aught, that resembles a sacrifice, nor that a sacrifice was instituted we find there indeed a feast, but no sacrifice. (b) If Christ had offered himself up in the supper, his sacrifice on the cross would have been unnecessary. Christ's sacrifice on the cross would have been a repetition, and an application of his sacrifice in the supper, and thus altogether different from what the Papists assert, who fancy that the sacrifice of the mass is a repetition and application of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. (c) If Christ be offered up in the supper for sins, we have not then a perfect forgiveness of sins by Christ's only sacrifice on the cross, contrary to what hath been said above from Heb. x. 10, 11, 18, Christ hath not then accomplished all things, contrary to his declaration, "It is finished," when "he gave up the ghost," John xix. 30. (d) Then deceased believers have still sins, contrary to what Paul saith, Rom. vi. 7. "He that is dead is freed from sin." (e) The New Testament, of which the supper is a sacrament, hath no priests; we read only of priests after the order of Melchizedec, of Aaron and Baal; the mass-priests cannot be after the order of Melchizedec, for Christ alone is after that order, according to Heb. vii. neither, can they be after the order of Aarony because that order hath been abolished. If they will be priests after. the order of Baal, we will allow it, for they are exceedingly like those priests, who "called upon their idol, and cut themselves with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them," 1 Kings. xviii. 26, 28. The New Testament doth not acknowledge either an altar, or proper sacrifices. Do we read of priests in the New Tes tament, they are not mass-priests, but believers in general, who "are made by Christ kings and priests unto God and his Father," Rev. i. 6. Do we read of any altar, Heb. xiii. 10, we do not however find many altars, which the Papists "have multiplied to sin," like idolatrous Ephraim, Hosea viii. 11, but only one altar, to wit, Chriş. Do we find sacrifices mentioned in the New Testament, they are the only sacrifice of Christ, and the spiritual sacrifices of believers, which they offer up to God by Christ, the only altar. See Heb. xiii. 10, 15, 16. 1 Peter ii. 5. And (f) how can either the Lord's supper, or the Popish mass be a sacrifice for the pardon of sins, when pothing is destroyed nor consumed, as was required in a sacrifice of